My vote is for a SHOULD for vCard 4.0 Anil On Tue Sep 01 2009 13:31:12 GMT-0700 (PDT) , Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com> wrote: > Cyrus Daboo wrote: > >> Hi Alexey, >> >> --On September 1, 2009 6:10:18 PM +0100 Alexey Melnikov >> <alexey.melnikov at isode.com> wrote: >> >>>> I have just posted draft -08 that contains all the changes listed >>>> here. Hopefully this is now ready for IESG last call? >>> >>> I didn't hear answer to my main question: why is this document requiring >>> support for vCard 3.0 and not for vCard 4.0? >> >> It needs to support both. Legacy vCard data will be around for a long >> time and we don't know how quickly clients will adopt it. We have >> CardDAV implementations already using vCard 3 so I think that is >> strong justification for keeping it as-is. > > The document as written says that support for vCard 3 is a MUST and > doesn't say anything about [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev], apart for > saying it is "in works". I feel this is a bit weak. > > I would really like to hear clear consensus from the WG that either this > should stay as is, or that [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev] should be a SHOULD. > > _______________________________________________ > VCARDDAV mailing list > VCARDDAV at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav -- _______________ Anil SRIVASTAVA | anil.srivastava at Sun.COM | Sun Microsystems, Inc
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature